Journal Logo


Lipofilling of Perineal and Vaginal Scars

A New Method for Improvement of Pain after Episiotomy and Perineal Laceration

Ulrich, Dietmar M.D., Ph.D.; Ulrich, Franziska M.D.; van Doorn, Lena M.D., Ph.D.; Hovius, Steven M.D., Ph.D.

Author Information
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: March 2012 - Volume 129 - Issue 3 - p 593e-594e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182419c2c
  • Free



Chronic pain after episiotomy caused by scar contracture or neuroma formation remains a serious problem.1 The therapy of choice can be simple resection of the scar tissue with primary wound closure or local flaps. Recovery after these corrections may take time, with the risk of receiving no improvement, more pain, or poor cosmetic results.

We have performed a prospective study with assessment of perineal/vaginal pain and sexual functioning before and after autologous free fat transplantation for correction of scars following childbirth in 20 patients (mean age, 34 ± 7.5 years; mean time after episiotomy, 10.3 ± 2.3 months). Mediolateral episiotomy had been performed in 18 patients. Two patients had pain after perineal laceration. Three patients have had correction of the scars with primary excision and no signs of improvement 6 months ago. All patients reported dyspareunia and other pain-related problems. Lipofilling was performed according to the Coleman technique,2 with scar release and implantation into parallel tunnels on multiple layers under the scars (Fig. 1). A special technique of infiltration with one finger in the vagina and another in the rectum was used to avoid injury of the rectum in case of lipofilling of scars of the posterior wall of the vagina. Perineal pain was assessed preoperatively and at different time points after lipofilling using the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, including the Present Pain Intensity index and a visual analogue scale.3 Sexual functioning was assessed with a revised Sabbatsberg Sexual Self-Rating Scale before and after intervention.4 Follow-up of the patients was scheduled after 1, 3, and 6 months. The distribution of variables within the patient group was compared by nonparametric analysis of variance (two-sample Wilcoxon test), and differences between dependent (paired) data were assessed by the nonparametric paired test (signed rank test). A value of p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. An average volume of 12 ± 3 cc of autologous fat was injected (range, 7 to 15 cc). Four patients underwent two lipofilling sessions because of improvement with the first lipofilling but had remaining painful areas in one part of the scar. The average interval between these sessions was 4 ± 1.5 months. All patients made good postoperative recovery without major complications. Eighteen of 20 patients had an immediate subjective improvement of their pain obviously attributable to release of severe scar contractures. One month after lipofilling, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire score was significantly reduced in comparison with the score before treatment (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2). Three and 6 months after treatment, the score had decreased further (p < 0.05). The Present Pain Intensity index and visual analogue scale score were also significantly reduced after 1, 3, and 6 months (p < 0.05). The Sabbatsberg Sexual Self-Rating Scale score showed a significant increase after lipofilling (p < 0.05). Fifteen patients were very satisfied with the small operation and five were satisfied.

Fig. 1:
Release of scar tissue combined with fat injection 8 months after mediolateral episiotomy in a 28-year-old patient with dyspareunia.
Fig. 2:
Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire scores before and 1, 3, and 6 months after lipofilling in patients with episiotomy and perineal laceration (*p < 0.05 versus before).

A number of studies recently demonstrated the reliability, long-term stability, and safety of autologous free fat transplantation in reconstructive procedures.5 In our opinion, lipofilling also seems to be a promising treatment for correction of perineal/vaginal scars after episiotomy and perineal laceration. It is well tolerated and offers encouraging results, with improvement of pain and better sexual function.

Dietmar Ulrich, M.D., Ph.D.

Franziska Ulrich, M.D.

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Lena van Doorn, M.D., Ph.D.

Department of Gynecology

Steven Hovius, M.D., Ph.D.

Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus University Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands


The authors have no financial interest in this research project or in any of the techniques or equipment used in the study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.


1. Hartmann K, Viswanathan M, Palmieri R, Gartlehner G, Thorp J Jr, Lohr KN. Outcomes of routine episiotomy: A systematic review. JAMA 2005;293:2141–2148.
2. Coleman SR. Structural Fat Grafting. St. Louis: Quality Medical; 2004.
3. Melzack R. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain 1987;30:191–197.
4. Garratt AM, Torgerson DJ, Wyness J, Hall MH, Reid DM. Measuring sexual functioning in premenopausal women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:311–316.
5. Lolli P, Malleo G, Rigotti G. Treatment of chronic anal fissures and associated stenosis by autologous adipose tissue transplant: A pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:460–466.


Viewpoints, pertaining to issues of general interest, are welcome, even if they are not related to items previously published. Viewpoints may present unique techniques, brief technology updates, technical notes, and so on. Viewpoints will be published on a space-available basis because they are typically less timesensitive than Letters and other types of articles. Please note the following criteria:

  • Text—maximum of 500 words (not including references)
  • References—maximum of five
  • Authors—no more than five
  • Figures/Tables—no more than two figures and/or one table

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Viewpoints should be submitted electronically via PRS' enkwell, at We strongly encourage authors to submit figures in color.

We reserve the right to edit Viewpoints to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content must be disclosed. Submission of a Viewpoint constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and assignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Viewpoints represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

©2012American Society of Plastic Surgeons